Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
It is about time the primadonas are put in their place.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
It is about time the primadonas are put in their place.
How about a hard cap for salaries with an unlimited bonus cap for pay for performance?
The quality of the games would be much increased if 10 - 15 franchises were annulled.
There's simply not enough coaching and playing talent to field 30 decent teams.
Of the 2400 games/season, there's probably only 400 worth watching.
Achieving parity in mediocrity is a shitty objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbestpro
Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
To be honest, I really like the current CBA structure; I think it's the best of the three major US sports. I certainly understand if salaries have to be pared back to make owners profitable (e.g.- reducing the % of income that goes to the players), but there are a lot of good qualities to the current agreement:
-The Bird rules allow teams to hang on to their best players. This breeds more loyalty between teams and players, and allows players to stay in one place for longer. This helps fans stay more familiar with their team for longer periods of time. Not having something like this is a major problem in the NFL, where fan-favorite players who still have a lot of skill are flat-out waived for cap reasons.
-The MLE and LLE give teams to improve every single offseason, and creates a well-paid middle class. I would certainly understand reducing the amounts of these exceptions and/or making the MLE every-other season. However, to eliminate these completely would help keep teams in ruts for a couple years at a time. (I guess I could see the argument of "those teams deserve it," but the light at the end of the tunnel is nice for fans.)
-The soft-cap and luxury tax system keeps teams from spending like crazy (a la MLB) while still giving them some flexibility. If you're set on having a hard cap, I'd prefer you have a soft cap similar to the current one, followed by a hard cap $5-20 million higher, which retains some of the Bird/MLE flexibility but puts a hard number on what teams can spend. I'd also be fine with starting the luxury tax right at the soft cap line, which punishes teams even more who try to overspend.
-As far as the section Kori quoted above, where they expect to make current contracts conform to new rules, I really don't see that happening. They'd be better off biting the bullet on the current contract, reducing all contracts signed after the new CBA, and grandfathering in old contracts to keep teams competitive under new cap rules. (For example, you could say that contracts signed before January 1, 2011 only counts 50% toward the new cap.) This would yield about 3-6 years where some players are making grossly more than others, but it would all even out in the end.
Need to also consider shorting the regular season to make a better product, but not sure how you could convince the owners to do it. I wonder how many games are played at a loss.
this.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
the owners make it look like this economy is staying bad forever.
Players’ Union More Unified After Latest Collective Bargaining Offer
SportingNews
David Stern and the owners recently submitted their first collective bargaining agreement offer for the upcoming negotiations. A few weeks ago, it was already clear that a lockout is looming in 2011 based on the demands of the owners and the resolve of the players’ union. Now we have some more specifics.
As Yahoo!’s Adrian Wojnarowski tells it, the details are not pretty:
The owners want to fundamentally change the salary structure of the NBA. They don’t want to negotiate a fresh collective bargaining agreement, as much as they want to crush the union once and for all.
The owners want to take a far greater percentage of the basketball-related income. They want to pay millions less for maximum deals and shorten contracts. Most of all, they want a hard salary cap and assurances that protect themselves against a diminished economy and, well, themselves.
Not only would all new contracts be subject to the rule changes, but existing contracts would have to be restructured or renegotiated. That would be a huge concession by the union, even more than what was anticipated. Plus, as the early reports suggest, Stern and Co. aren’t willing to concede anything right now.
The players are not happy. Adonal Foyle had this to say to the Orlando Sentinel:
"I think [changing existing contracts] is probably the fatal flaw, because if there is one way to unite the entire NBA against a single thing it would be to go after everybody," Foyle told the Orlando Sentinel before the Magic played the Boston Celtics at TD Garden. "I think what this proposal has done has done us a favor. It has basically mobilized all our players.
"Guys are calling. Guys what to know [sic] what’s happening and they want to get involved. So, I am in a way happy that they [the owners] did what they did, because I think now they have awakened not only the players who have been constantly involved in these kinds of negotiations, but they’ve awakened the guys that would have been on the outside looking in."
In any negotiation, there’s something to be said for asking for the world first and shifting the area of compromise further in your direction. I doubt the NBA thinks the union will agree to these initial terms, but they’ve already changed the parameters of the negotiation. With many franchises losing money, there’s no doubt that they’re willing to deal with lockout if these more lasting protections are eventually instituted.
However, making such an outlandish proposal so early also makes the other side more unified, as Foyle’s comments show. The eventual compromise may be more in the NBA’s favor, but it also makes it more likely that negotiations will drag on for a very long time as both sides refuse to budge. Everyone has expected a lockout of some kind, but a protracted, potentially season-long stalemate could hurt the league more than any financial trouble the owners are trying to guard against with these protections.
I don't dislike the idea of performance bonuses like the NFL. Of course a real risk exists of making game even more about the individual than the team. Maybe teams can get creative with incentives, e.g., (1) team-wide incentives for wins or for holding teams between 40-45% shooting; (2) individual incentive NOT linked to point totals but maybe FG efficiency, rebounds, opposing player FG%, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbestpro
Unfortunately, player/team performance isn't the only factor driving profits. True Kobe and Lebron sell in part because of their amazing feats; however, there are also the AI of the world that either play sparingly or inconsistently but are still coveted by teams for their ability to sell seats. Or put another way, there are the TDs of the world with amazing numbers, but who don't "enjoy" the same popularity.
The legitimate gripe the union has with the hard cap is that it essentially erodes the earning power of the middle range of NBA players. The concern is that teams will still bend over backward to pay the franchise level players (including those not deserving of the title) and to do so eat up a significant part of the remaining cap. The remaining portion then would have to be allocated among the quasi-star, middle-range, and system/clog players.
Here's the latest from the union: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4895310